The only people who fight him are the good old establishment (cops, etc). The people did nothing in the revolt against Bane, and IMO, I think it made the entire trilogy's point about the PEOPLE taking back their city moot. The people didn't take back the city in their darkest hour: cops did. Not even with the civilian help.

I didn't have a problem with the cops taking back the city. There was still a payoff there. It was full circle, we start with a corrupt police force in BB and TDK, but by the end of TDKR they are defending Gotham alongside the Batman. Cops are people too. Who were the biggest heroes on 9/11? Cops and firefighters who inspired an entire country.

TDK showed that Batman didn't want civilians literally physically fighting when they're not qualified for it. "That wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire people". Now, I wouldn't have had a problem with some tougher civilians entering the battle, but I think from a visual standpoint it helped reinforce the war theme better to have all the police in their uniforms vs. the mercenaries in their wardrobe.

The Dark Knight Rises doesn't have the mainstream audience support that The Dark Knight did either. People don't talk like TDKR changed the genre (because, quite frankly, it did no such thing) like they did with TDK or The Avengers now. Also, quite frankly, I think the love of TDK makes fans of the trilogy want to rate TDKR a lot higher than it deserves.

Technically speaking it is a spectacular film, but it's just a hokey action movie when you get right down to it.

Ninja's who live in the sewers unbeknownst to the Water and Sewage Department? C'mon, that kind of a plot point would've been laughed out of TDK. I think this actually serves it well as a third film because it avoids the pitfall of trying to replicate what was good about TDK, but as it stands it's a much weaker film.

Also, between Skyfall and Avengers (which I wouldn't nominate either), I think if you nominate TDKR you pretty much have to include those two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider-Fan

All of this is irrelevant if the script doesn't work, and the 3rd act of TDKR has many problems. Also, I think this film was too interested in making a pro-establishment message, that it made the people of Gotham look bad. All the people of Gotham, despite knowing there was a bomb, bend to Bane's will, enforce his rule, and act as sheep. The only people who fight him are the good old establishment (cops, etc). The people did nothing in the revolt against Bane, and IMO, I think it made the entire trilogy's point about the PEOPLE taking back their city moot. The people didn't take back the city in their darkest hour: cops did. Not even with the civilian help. This isn't even to mention all the story issues with the twist, the public's knowledge of the bomb, why the bad guys were so willing to die, etc. The film just raised too many questions, and this is why it isn't getting the buzz TDK did.

Visually, the film is amazing. Conceptually (aka, the story/plot), it is very weak. This is why I don't feel it warrants a major award.

Couldn't agree more, guys.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

I didn't have a problem with the cops taking back the city. There was still a payoff there. It was full circle, we start with a corrupt police force in BB and TDK, but by the end of TDKR they are defending Gotham alongside the Batman. Cops are people too. Who were the biggest heroes on 9/11? Cops and firefighters who inspired an entire country.

TDK showed that Batman didn't want civilians literally physically fighting when they're not qualified for it. "That wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire people". Now, I wouldn't have had a problem with some tougher civilians entering the battle, but I think from a visual standpoint it helped reinforce the war theme better to have all the police in their uniforms vs. the mercenaries in their wardrobe.

This.

It was never Batman's intention to turn the citizens of Gotham into crimefighters. His quest was to rehabilitate Gotham's police department/structure of justice so evil men could be tried justly for their crimes.

"The People" were never meant to take back the city. Hell, Bane mocked Batman's crusade by telling the people at the stadium "Take control of your city!"

Again, every time I hear complaints about TDKR they sound more like "Well, I woulda done it this way instead" despite having nothing to do with Nolan's intended vision.

Also, how are civilians supposed to stop a terrorist organization filled with armed mercenaries & a nuclear weapon that's keeping the military outside the city?

There's a reason the cops are trapped below the city & the bomb is keeping the Army out.

Talia & Bane wanted to give the citizens of Gotham false hope. They were waiting for freedom much like the prisoners of the Lazarus Pit - and as with them too, freedom was never coming. Only death.

Personally, I'm not even sure I'm all that enthused by the technical/visual spectacle that TDKR represents. Due to runtime limitations, many of the set pieces were surprisingly mediocre due to poor editing.

As well, during later viewings, I came to find the taller aspect ratio of the IMAX scenes actually less grand, epic, and cinematic. It almost had a TV like appearance in regards to how shots were framed. I think Nolan may have actually used the format more effectively in TDK. By reserving it for wide shots and large action spectacles, the format elevated the grandeur of those special moments. It created a larger canvas. In contrast, I find TDKR actually lost some of grandeur and cinematic quality by using IMAX so much in the film. Say what you will, but good old-fashioned anamorphic widescreen composition has certain unique quality to it.

Hmm, I'd have to think about that one. For me, Bruce climbing out of the pit in IMAX was just about the most impactful visual I've seen in a film all year, and seemed like the perfect use of the framing and format. Of course, this being the namesake of the movie and an emotionally cathartic payoff to a 3 movie arc didn't hurt the scene any, but it was definitely a moment where I thought..."This is why I go to the movies".

TDK should have been nominated for its year. In all honesty it probably should have won, because while I liked Milk and Frost/Nixon, they, nor Slumdog Millionaire, Benjamin Button and certainly The Reader, will not stand the test of time as a mainstream classic like The Dark Knight will.

All that said, TDKR is not as good and the hype has died down for it. There is no populist buzz to push it into a nomination like TDK. Despite there now being ten slots, this is such a strong year that unlike, say, 2009, there is not enough room for a popular mainstream film to get a token nomination. Oh well.

__________________
"Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country."

Ledger gave a performance that was award-worthy; but, his death helped push for his acquisition of an award. I remember watching the ceremony that night, because I had two articles written for the deadline the following morning: one praising the Academy's decision to recognize his performance, the other damning it for failing to do so.

But, The Dark Knight Rises did not have that brand of calamity and hype that The Dark Knight had. Michael Caine deserves an award for his performance as Alfred. He will not acquire it, and I will be very surprised if he receives a nomination. It is wrong, but it is what it is.

__________________
"Johnny Storm's a good-hearted kid, sure, but he has the attention span of a toaster, and he leads with his face; in Johnny's undisciplined mind, there's only a single synapse between thinking and doing. The Avengers' battle cry is "Avengers Assemble"; the Fantastic Four's is "Johnny, WAIT!"----Mark Waid

The whole point of expanding the category was to give movies a chance that the public has actually seen, in an effort to reverse the bad ratings trend for the Oscars. So IMO the Academy is only going to make itself look bad if they use up 10 slots to nominate 10 Oscar bait films. But we'll see what happens.

Personally I think it can go either way. Right now I'm leaning 60/40 in favor of no nomination happening.

Personally, I'm not even sure I'm all that enthused by the technical/visual spectacle that TDKR represents. Due to runtime limitations, many of the set pieces were surprisingly mediocre due to poor editing.

As well, during later viewings, I came to find the taller aspect ratio of the IMAX scenes actually less grand, epic, and cinematic. It almost had a TV like appearance in regards to how shots were framed. I think Nolan may have actually used the format more effectively in TDK. By reserving it for wide shots and large action spectacles, the format elevated the grandeur of those special moments. It created a larger canvas. In contrast, I find TDKR actually lost some of grandeur and cinematic quality by using IMAX so much in the film. Say what you will, but good old-fashioned anamorphic widescreen composition has certain unique quality to it.

Pretty much... and Game of Thrones. In all seriousness, I love IMAX and film and think Wally did a great job lighting TDKR, but, at times in the film, I can honestly say I missed the aspect ratio of traditional 35 mm films. It might have just been Nolan's choice of composition, but I found the final set pieces underwhelming. Batman's first appearance though during the stock market chase was pure brilliance, especially the way the camera pans up Batman's body to show all the cops coming in to surround him.

Pretty much... and Game of Thrones. In all seriousness, I love IMAX and film and think Wally did a great job lighting TDKR, but, at times in the film, I can honestly say I missed the aspect ratio of traditional 35 mm films. It might have just been Nolan's choice of composition, but I found the final set pieces underwhelming. Batman's first appearance though during the stock market chase was pure brilliance, especially the way the camera pans up Batman's body to show all the cops coming in to surround him.

I understand that general sentiment.

2.31:1 or whatever it is is always my preferred ratio. But that has nothing to do with digital vs. film.

With IMAX, it's more about the size of it than anything, obviously. A widescreen IMAX movie would be incredible, though.

It was never Batman's intention to turn the citizens of Gotham into crimefighters. His quest was to rehabilitate Gotham's police department/structure of justice so evil men could be tried justly for their crimes.

I never said it was his intention to make them crime fighters, but he was aspiring to inspire the people of Gotham to rise above what the city had become and help fix it. The result was the corruption of this vision by manipulating the people into believing in a false idol only to become savages and be saved once again by the men in uniform. Batman didn't inspire the city, he inspired a small group of the powerful establishment. That, to me, isn't the same thing.

Quote:

"The People" were never meant to take back the city. Hell, Bane mocked Batman's crusade by telling the people at the stadium "Take control of your city!"

Again, every time I hear complaints about TDKR they sound more like "Well, I woulda done it this way instead" despite having nothing to do with Nolan's intended vision.

No, my problem isn't that Nolan didn't do it a certain way. My problems are that the way he chose to do it were messy within the context of both his own film (TDKR) and the franchise (the trilogy). I'm not picking this movie apart because it differed from my vision, I am picking it apart because, as a writer myself, I see way too many holes in the story and logic behind the characters and the story. I don't care if you disagree with me, but writing this off as simple failure of wish fulfilment shows you're not reading what I am saying.

Quote:

Also, how are civilians supposed to stop a terrorist organization filled with armed mercenaries & a nuclear weapon that's keeping the military outside the city?

There's a reason the cops are trapped below the city & the bomb is keeping the Army out.

Farmers with pitchforks and inferior tech defeated the British. People with planning and ingenuity can do great things. Also, so can writers with more creativity.

Quote:

Talia & Bane wanted to give the citizens of Gotham false hope. They were waiting for freedom much like the prisoners of the Lazarus Pit - and as with them too, freedom was never coming. Only death.

The false hope thing I get, but once again, the way it plays out raises a bunch of questions. Why are millions of people so willing to just let their city explode without taking some action? Why are Talia and Bane on some kind of suicide mission to honor a man that didn't even raise Talia for much of her childhood and never accepted them anyway? Etc, etc etc. I am all for suspension of disbelief, but I don't feel what the film gave me was enough. People in desperation don't just lie down when the chips are down. Come life or death, people try to survive. They just don't wait for the bomb to explode. Likewise, I just don't buy Talia and Bane doing all this just to die in the name of a nebulous cause or give Batman the middle finger.

The false hope thing I get, but once again, the way it plays out raises a bunch of questions. Why are millions of people so willing to just let their city explode without taking some action?

I hear what you're saying in essence, but at the same time the millions in Gotham were not privy to the fact that the bomb was going to blow no matter what. In their eyes, making a move on Bane is only going to bring about their own demise because of the anonymous triggerman. The fact that the nuke can be detonated at any moment yet hasn't been, makes it seem like Bane and his revolutionaries are 100% committed to their "cause" and not Gotham's destruction. So they're not waiting to die, they're hoping to live. They're caught between a rock and a hard place, but they were under the impression that living complacently under Bane's rule is what will keep them alive. If it had gotten out that the bomb was going off no matter what, it'd be a different story.

Also, we only saw a very small fraction of those 5 months so there's no saying for sure either whether or not there were any ragtag rebellions that Bane had squashed. This would have been neat to see, but it would have done nothing to advance any important character arcs and only served to add fat to the film, so I can see why they'd not go there. We know that anonymous Gothamites 1, 2 3 and "No more dead cops!" guy aren't going to be the heroes that defeat the bad guy in a Batman movie, and we've established that Bane and the LOS are an unstoppable wrecking ball of blunt militant force. We don't really learn much by seeing a few brave Gothamites become cannon fodder for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider-Fan

Batman didn't inspire the city, he inspired a small group of the powerful establishment. That, to me, isn't the same thing.

I still think he inspired the city at large. He basically becomes Gotham's J.C. by the film's end, getting memorialized for generations to remember. And in the end, Blake serves to represent the idea of good people stepping up. By the end of the film he's off the police force and no longer a part of the establishment, but he's in a position to take the torch. Also, Batman inspires Selina to listen to her better, unselfish side. So he definitely inspired more than just the establishment.

I hear what you're saying in essence, but at the same time the millions in Gotham were not privy to the fact that the bomb was going to blow no matter what. In their eyes, making a move on Bane is only going to bring about their own demise because of the anonymous triggerman. The fact that Bane can blow the nuke at any moment and instead lets Gotham live makes it seem like he's 100% committed to the revolution and not Gotham's destruction. So they're not waiting to die, they're hoping to live. They're caught between a rock and a hard place, but they were under the impression that living complacently under Bane's rule is what will keep them alive. If it had gotten out that the bomb was going off no matter what, it'd be a different story.

Also, we only saw a very small fraction of those 5 months so there's no saying for sure either whether or not there were any ragtag rebellions that Bane had squashed. This would have been neat to see, but it would have done nothing to advance any important character arcs and only served to add fat to the film, so I can see why they'd not go there. We know that anonymous Gothamites 1, 2 3 and "No more dead cops!" guy aren't going to be the heroes that defeat the bad guy in a Batman movie, and we've established that Bane and the LOS are an unstoppable wrecking ball of blunt militant force. We don't really learn much by seeing a few brave Gothamites become cannon fodder for them.

The police clearly say in the movie that they know it is happening, and the grapevine was passing that information around. So, enough people would have known to start a mass panic. Or, at the very least, would have been spreading word like that around like crazy. In a situation in which escape is not possible, people do whatever they must to survive. Crowds of people can take down a king, his army, etc. It has happened all throughout history. For this reason, I absolutely cannot buy how this worked out. I can suspend disbelief that such a bomb exists and all that stuff, but suspension of disbelief doesn't mean I have to instantly buy into everything about the film without a proper explanation, and this film just doesn't do that in regard to the citizens of Gotham. It just ignores how they'd react, and in a film that focuses very heavily on the takeover of a city and anarchy in the streets, that doesn't work.

The police clearly say in the movie that they know it is happening, and the grapevine was passing that information around. So, enough people would have known to start a mass panic. Or, at the very least, would have been spreading word like that around like crazy. In a situation in which escape is not possible, people do whatever they must to survive. Crowds of people can take down a king, his army, etc. It has happened all throughout history. For this reason, I absolutely cannot buy how this worked out. I can suspend disbelief that such a bomb exists and all that stuff, but suspension of disbelief doesn't mean I have to instantly buy into everything about the film without a proper explanation, and this film just doesn't do that in regard to the citizens of Gotham. It just ignores how they'd react, and in a film that focuses very heavily on the takeover of a city and anarchy in the streets, that doesn't work.

I honestly don't remember that being said or even implied in the movie. If anything, the way I understood it, the small group in Gordon's operation would be keeping a lid on that to not cause a mass panic. Gordon was being very secretive when the special agents were there, didn't even want to say how many he had in his group. He needed Blake to go all "hot head" mode to give them the real situation with the bomb.

If I'm wrong on that though please refresh my memory because I haven't seen the movie in months.

Why are Talia and Bane on some kind of suicide mission to honor a man that didn't even raise Talia for much of her childhood and never accepted them anyway? Etc, etc etc. I am all for suspension of disbelief, but I don't feel what the film gave me was enough. People in desperation don't just lie down when the chips are down. Come life or death, people try to survive. They just don't wait for the bomb to explode. Likewise, I just don't buy Talia and Bane doing all this just to die in the name of a nebulous cause or give Batman the middle finger.

Talia & Bane represent Al-Qaeda. Terrorists who follow a code the rest of the world, specially us Americans will never understand.

The scene that further accentuates that notion is when Talia stabs Bruce. He's so shocked & despite connecting the dots still bothers to inquire as to why she would serve the memory of Ra's Al Ghul - a man who died trying to kill millions of innocent people.

Al-Qaeda can't ne negotiated with nor should we try to understand their "cause". Its not geopolitical nonsense. Its insanity.

Bruce's confusion, the look of horror in his face after she puts the knife in him, represents our own confusion regarding the Jihad agenda.

Talia & Bane represent Al-Qaeda. Terrorists who follow a code the rest of the world, specially us Americans will never understand.

The scene that further accentuates that notion is when Talia stabs Bruce. He's so shocked & despite connecting the dots still bothers to inquire as to why she would serve the memory of Ra's Al Ghul - a man who died trying to kill millions of innocent people.

Al-Qaeda can't ne negotiated with nor should we try to understand their "cause". Its not geopolitical nonsense. Its insanity.

Bruce's confusion, the look of horror in his face after she puts the knife in him, represents our own confusion regarding the Jihad agenda.

Al Qaeada still operate under an idealogy of religion and other factors that are tangible and can be researched and explained. They don't blow themselves up for no reason. The League of Shadows in this film want to do the suicide mission for...science?

There is a big difference, and the film's attempts at motivation are sketchy at best. This film wasn't doing anything deep by leaving their motivation largely unexplained. That is just poor scripting.